Visit Pensionweb to see the results of our latest poll and to add your valuable comments
We've still go a lot to do but we are looking to do this in-house with support from our legal advisors.
Our legal advisors have advised that we tell members that their data is being processed to comply with the Trustees legal obligations in relation to the Scheme and also under “legitimate interests”.
I believe we've been advised to use legitimate interests as well.
Has anyone had advice on the issue of retention and deletion of records?
If you would like to see the entire contents of this discussion please apply for access to Pensionweb.
I have never run an ETV exercise but in my last job and in this job have worked with Origen in different ways and I would say that they are a professional and friendly organisation who won't let you down.
Apply for access to Pensionweb to see further responses to this question.
The information I have seen states:
Under the GDPR, you must appoint a data protection officer (DPO) if you:
are a public authority (except for courts acting in their judicial capacity);
carry out large scale systematic monitoring of individuals (for example, online behaviour tracking); or
carry out large scale processing of special categories of data or data relating to criminal convictions and offences.
You may appoint a single data protection officer to act for a group of companies or for a group of public authorities, taking into account their structure and size.
Any organisation is able to appoint a DPO. Regardless of whether the GDPR obliges you to appoint a DPO, you must ensure that your organisation has sufficient staff and skills to discharge your obligations under the GDPR
We have just done an exercise for retirees under age 80 as advice from the lawyer was they were vulnerable. We sent out 523 letters and to date over 300 have accepted the offer and been paid. We used transfer values to calculate the lump sum.
Our legal advisors said the following in respect of pensioners over 80.
In relation to your follow on query, there are specific provisions in the Code in relation to “Vulnerable Clients”, which is defined to include “clients who may be particularly vulnerable by virtue of age, health, understanding etc., and who may therefore require special treatment.”
Principle 6 of the Code deals with the treatment of Vulnerable Clients. Where pensioner members are included in such an exercise:
• pensioners under 80 may receive an offer pack;
• pensioners aged 80 and over should only receive a short letter to notify them that a small pot exercise is taking place and that they will not be contacted again unless they get in touch to ask for an offer pack (i.e. this should only be offered to such members on an “opt-in” basis). The letter should be unbiased, factual and not seek to influence the member one way or the other.
The Code goes further than this and states that those initiating an exercise may choose to target specific groups of members only who may be more likely to benefit from an Incentive Exercise, and this is acceptable under the Code (but care should be taken to comply with all relevant legislation including but not limited to age discrimination legislation).
Therefore, it is possible to exclude pensioners over 80 and perhaps a more common approach is to include them in such an exercise on an “opt-in” basis only, with great care being taken in relation to how any member communications are drafted.
Try Sue Clarke at Wordshop. She ran the last MNT ballot for me. It went very well. Unfortunately I cannot remember the costs but they were not high at all.
We used Electoral Reform last year for MNT election - the contact was Matthew Reeve - 020 8365 8909.
It cost £2540.
We have used ERS for our pensioner-nominated trustee position (balloting c.140,000 individuals). Similar costs as quoted by others and happy with service provided.
Apply for Access to Pensionweb for your free trial which will enable you to add your response to this discussion and many more. Also, you will be able to ask the community a burning question of your own.
I am not an expert on these regulations, but I agree with you. There is a requirement to hold the data and you do hold the data. I do not think that there is a requirement to repeat the data in separate records: that would make no sense.
Yes, it applies if they have 'flexibly' accessed pension funds to take cash i.e. using the new freedoms so as not to be bound by the old 25% maximum. It was already possible to take 25% cash but leave the 75% invested to be taken as taxable income later, and doing that will not reduce the AA to the MPAA.
As expected, the Treasury have now announced that the proposal to lower the MPAA from £10K to £4K will become legislation after the summer recess and this cut will apply from April 2017.
Apply for a free trial of Pensionweb to see what other members added to this discussion.
Since its establishment in 2002, Pensionweb has helped hundreds of in-house pension professionals achieve better outcomes for their employers’ pension arrangements.
To find out how – call Julie (01924 203906) for a FREE trial.